something I found interesting about this whilst reading around is that Baseball Players are (from what I saw)  contractually obliged to stand for the US National Anthem.

OK, watched it. Honestly, this is just not all that big of an issue for me because as that woman said, everyone IS free to sit, stand, kneel, spit, etc., etc. and that is all a citizen is guaranteed (first, fifth and 14th Amendments) is the freedom of expression, not any restrictions on what may be perceived as proper behavior.

As far as it being effective, I honestly do not know about that either: non- violent protest has long been a valid way to state a person or group's displeasure with the status quo. It is perfectly legal to do so, beyond that, it is way above my pay grade to judge if it is the smartest thing young, angry black people can or even should do to try and alter things. ??

The real issue as I see it is that it is another source of conflict, emotional inflaming in general, and creates a problem for those trying to run otherwise profitable, peaceable and generally well- liked business such as the NFL, the team owners, stadiums, vendors, that millions of paying fans clearly want. None of this is a legal matter and certainly not a constitutional matter though. But on a practical level, perhaps a compromise by the teams wherein those who may not want to stand for the anthem stay inside, out of public sight, until the anthem and maybe opening ceremonies are finished and then present themselves, respectfully, on the field. That would allow those who do not care to support the anthem to avoid it, make a perfectly obvious statement, but not outright stir up additional anger and 'blowback' far beyond whatever positive they might be trying to achieve.

So kinda' yeah, I do agree with the message other than the specific direction to conform and 'blend in'. But the overall message that those lashing out are creating more problems than they are solving I do agree with.... but as I said, it is not my 'job' or anyone else's IMO, to tell anyone or any group what they can / cannot, should / should not do beyond a suggestion (which that video was- it was NOT a directive, rule or anything else, and it was pretty well presented I think).

By the way, I personally do not like that behavior but 1) it does not make me angry and 2) it is not only legal but protected behavior so there is no question in my mind whether or not 'something should be done to stop it' (I mean in any official, rule- driven way) because THAT would be unconstitutional. Of course if fans do not like it and withhold their football dollars, why that too is perfectly fine, sends a strong message I think, and is not only a very American way to do something, it is a very capitalist way too.

Brian

Seeing as the 6 Nations Rugby has just kicked off again this weekend maybe some of you guys will find it interesting to see our approach to National Anthems at premier sporting events


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9uyarJbQqg


(oh and don't be afraid to state that the English (ok technically its the UK) National Anthem is a bit of a dirge, it is. There have been suggestions in the past that England should have their own National Anthem for major sporting events or even maybe a new UK/GB National Anthem.





As an aside growing up in Wales at a time that TV used to close down at midnight then both the Welsh & English Anthems were played before the telly screen faded to a small dot.


Oh and another aside regarding Irleland at the 6 Nations


"At matches played in the Republic, both "Amhrán na bhFiann" (as the anthem of the Republic of Ireland) and "Ireland's Call" (as the anthem of the home team) are sung. Elsewhere, "Ireland's Call" is the only anthem used, in recognition of the need for a unifying anthem."

Yes, and the same thing could be done at a league level (NFL) or as a contractual agreement between all the players and the teams but it would take a while until all the current contracts ran out and new ones signed.

But again, this one is touchy because right now in the US, we are mired in people screaming racism, whether there is any racism or not. And with the state of FaceTwit and 'them asses' all doing ME TOO! behind the next post, it is quite likely that any single team or team owner will be plowed under for even suggesting such a contract point.

It is truly pretty bad here right now: Arrest a bank robber that is white, and you have arrested a person for robbing a bank. Arrest a bank robber who is black, and there is no doubt that the 'race' card will be played on some level, maybe not too bad, and maybe like an earthquake but either way, many will scream that that person was only arrested because he / she was black and the bank robbery is all a ruse and "not the point".

I do not think most non- Americans are appreciating what a problem this is for us right now.

Brian

something I found interesting about this whilst reading around is that Baseball Players are (from what I saw)  contractually obliged to stand for the US National Anthem.

So...as long as we're playing Identity Politics what would be the most protected class. I would venture an African-Mexican-American mentally challenged sight-impaired  transgender Muslim lesbian? Anybody else know of a better one?

So...as long as we're playing Identity Politics what would be the most protected class. I would venture an African-Mexican-America transgender Muslim lesbian? Anybody else know of a better one?

you left out a physical disability

Good catch

I agree with you about the job aspect but again, that is the P.C. kicking in in this country to the point where everyone is terrified to do ANYTHING that can be perceived, in the slightest and most convoluted way, of picking or disparaging any of the 'protected' groups. And right now, the black community is the most protected group as far as I can tell.

The team owners could alter this behavior but only if they do it extremely carefully and in unison, as a group. If one team owner does it, he / she / then will be tarred and feathered for being racist.

A very poor state of affairs IMO. The P.C. wind blows so strong one cannot even tell the truth if it is not in agreement with the 'correct' thinking.

Brian

Yup, was a no win situation for the NFL. But then they took sides when they refused to air an ad from veterans group asking everyone to stand up:
 http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22191008/nfl-rejects-veterans-group-amvets-ad-super-bowl-program

Key quote: "McCarthy said the NFL game program has "never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement."
But they are providing a place for players to make a political statement. The just took sides IMO. Fine, that is their right. It's my right to not watch.

How can anyone not agree with this?

Hmmm...well I agree with much (most)of what she says...however....not standing...especially taking a knee is not what I would consider disrespect. True it isn't honoring the flag or the anthem but I don't consider it disrespect. Many of these athletes have been taking a knee whenever a player (of any color, from either team) is injured since they were in peewee football. Perhaps they are just showing that they think the country is still injured despite the MLK inspired improvements and having elected a black (Ok, 50%) president. I think taking a knee is more respectful than sitting on the bench or holding a fist in the air but that's just me.  Most kneeling are black, but not all, yet I'll bet if interviewed in depth they would have many different explanations for what they are doing. Getting back to the video in question...she mentions that 1. "Despite what we are told by Black Lives Matter and their media allies, the police are not engaged in a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race." I have never heard anyone say that there is a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race. I'm not saying it's never been uttered somewhere, but I certainly can't find it on the Black Lives Matter website and I've never heard it in the news (but then I don't watch Fox, however I doubt she was referring to them as the media allies). She also says that Roland G. Fryer says that it isn't true that there is racial bias in police shootings (True). However he does say that "On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police." Which by itself doesn't examine whether or not black and Hispanics might be more likely to do something to trigger such a response. (I didn't read the whole paper, perhaps it does account for this).  2. She says that it makes no sense to denigrate the flag because of some racist police officers. I agree on that, but is simply taking a knee during the National Anthem denigration?. Standing up with fist raised and middle finger extended..yes, turning around with bare butt cheeks facing the flag..yes, taking a knee...I don't think so.  Is it self defeating?...maybe...but then here we are typing about it. Discussing it. Whether or not it was caused by football players or by Black Lives matter, more and more police departments are now going with body cameras. I think that it is better for us (most of us) and better for the police officers (vast majority of them anyway).  I believe there was a racial/racist problem with the Ferguson police department, however I also think that the jury was correct not to indict officer Darren Wilson. The only video I saw was of Brown acting like a thug in the store. I wish there had been a video of what happened between Brown and Wilson.

Far more interesting to me than if football players stand or kneel, would be if four different groups of typical citizens say 2 separate black groups and 2 separate white groups where to watch two videos of the exact same altercation (enacted with a script obviously) between a police officer and a black person that results in the shooting (theatrical, again obviously) of the black person. In one the officer would be white and the other the officer would be black. (Each of the four groups would only see one video) I'd like to hear the discussion that would follow that. I think the only way we make any progress in this area is through discussion and interaction, not by subject avoidance and not by searching for folks "that think just like me". 

Somewhat related, the NFL....some say they won't watch the NFL anymore because of kneeling football players, maybe so..but I heard a lot of that kind of talk over the years about different subjects, players strikes, end zone celebrations, huge $$ contracts etc. The NFL has survived that all just fine, yes viewership and attendance is down and perhaps some is due to the kneeling, but I suspect that if the NFL ever suffers total demise, it will be from head injuries and litigation costs associated with same. Not from lack of fans due to kneeling athletes....but I'm frequently wrong.

Regardless, Thanks Conrad for the video.

A very poor state of affairs IMO. The P.C. wind blows so strong one cannot even tell the truth if it is not in agreement with the 'correct' thinking.

My thoughts too- which is yielding to the "PC" THIS time?  Allowing them to "protest" or not allowing?  Either way is offensive to someone.

But on a practical level, perhaps a compromise by the teams wherein those who may not want to stand for the anthem stay inside, out of public sight, until the anthem and maybe opening ceremonies are finished and then present themselves, respectfully, on the field.

Sorry, but that is just too reasonable, logical, and great of a suggestion.  They would turn it down, outright, because it isn't about how they actually feel, it is about making sure everyone else knows how they feel....

As Rhino said, the employer should have the right to establish a conduct code that employees would be required to follow so as not to be detrimental to the business. The NFL is not the employer, the owners are. The NFL was used by the owners to avoid being the target and avoid having to make hard business decisions.

Yes, agreed they can and it would all be perfectly legal. But if one or even two teams / owners did it, the blow-back from the public may be tremendous and untenable for that owner(s) and team. Again, this is the P.C. aspect and has nothing to do with the law or anything else.

Look around at all the garbage and the ground- noise generated when a cake making company chooses not to make a cake for a particular couple (foggy in my memory but perhaps a lesbian wedding)? They had every right to do so and yet they were pummeled unmercifully for no other reason than they tried to row against the 'current tide', which is that we MUST LOVE everyone, the more different from the 'norm.' the better. Anyone can stand up and say 'I do not like (put group name here: homosexuals, people of color, Jewish people, Catholic people, ad nauseum)' and it is our grass roots society that will punish them for merely having an opinion that does not align with the currently perceived 'correct' one. And if the blow- back is large enough, it may well be the NFL that decides to chuck that (those) team's owner out!

Again, a large portion of our behavior today is governed by the whimsical social reactions through social media. Which almost always is in direct opposition to customs and laws in place and working fine; you may well think you have freedom of speech, and legally that is probably true in most instances but if the social whim turns against something that has been said, best of luck going forward with a business reputation and in some cases, even a reasonable life. Oh yeah, you can say it but then you have to go live under a rock....

So while it is easy enough for 'us' to say or think that franchise owners should do what they absolutely can do to stop what many do not like, almost none of us have anything even close to as much collateral exposed to damage, reduction or outright loss. I am pretty outspoken and firm (Easy Boys!) in my convictions but I have to say, I would be extremely wary of running my yap and making major policy changes with eight, nine or ten digits worth of money on the line just waiting for the piranhas to go into a feeding frenzy.

Brian

As Rhino said, the employer should have the right to establish a conduct code that employees would be required to follow so as not to be detrimental to the business. The NFL is not the employer, the owners are. The NFL was used by the owners to avoid being the target and avoid having to make hard business decisions.

If people are really opposed to how the NFL and all involved are conducting business they should stop funding them. Not by just not watching but by pulling taxpayer money for the stadiums. let them take their ball and go home. Ask St Louis how they enjoyed the outcome of their NFL experience. 

Look around at all the garbage and the ground- noise generated when a cake making company chooses not to make a cake for a particular couple

If I remember correctly, they were happy to provide a cake of any type, they just weren't willing to custom decorate it with homosexual wording/imagery on it because that part conflicted with the owner/employees' beliefs about what constituted "marriage".  Other bakeries in the area were willing.

If people are really opposed to how the NFL and all involved are conducting business they should stop funding them.

I have said that for years.  It is the Libertarian-approved response- speak with your wallet.  Consumers have much more power than they think.  Typically, businesses WILL respond to customer demand, if they value staying in business.  It doesn't always work (especially if there are monopolies involved)... and there are some cases where regulation is needed.  But it seems most people just want the government to step in and force businesses and people to act and operate the way they want in just about every matter.

Yes, and when we add our vocal / vote speech to our wallet's speech, well then we speak with forked tongue.

We say we do not want illegal immigrants. But what is all over the side of this nation's largest retailer.... "We do not use illegal labor"? Nah. "We follow all US laws". Nope, not that either. "Low prices..... always". Aha! There we go, and what is one major method of maintaining those low prices? Cheap labor, foreign and domestic, which includes illegal laborers slipping through the cracks that our wallets want. And I am not blaming <you> people, I too shop there and so am just as guilty as supporting  some of the very things I say that I am opposed to.

It is tricky I tells' ya'.

Brian

I have said that for years.  It is the Libertarian-approved response- speak with your wallet.  Consumers have much more power than they think.  Typically, businesses WILL respond to customer demand, if they value staying in business.  It doesn't always work (especially if there are monopolies involved)... and there are some cases where regulation is needed.  But it seems most people just want the government to step in and force businesses and people to act and operate the way they want in just about every matter.

It is tricky I tells' ya'.

Indeed it is.  Shades of gray.

Indeed it is.  Shades of gray.

Lol never thought of the link before this thread


50 Shades of Grey,
50 States of USA





it even rhymes

Hmmm...well I agree with much (most)of what she says...however....not standing...especially taking a knee is not what I would consider disrespect. True it isn't honoring the flag or the anthem but I don't consider it disrespect. Many of these athletes have been taking a knee whenever a player (of any color, from either team) is injured since they were in peewee football. Perhaps they are just showing that they think the country is still injured despite the MLK inspired improvements and having elected a black (Ok, 50%) president. I think taking a knee is more respectful than sitting on the bench or holding a fist in the air but that's just me.  Most kneeling are black, but not all, yet I'll bet if interviewed in depth they would have many different explanations for what they are doing. Getting back to the video in question...she mentions that 1. "Despite what we are told by Black Lives Matter and their media allies, the police are not engaged in a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race." I have never heard anyone say that there is a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race. I'm not saying it's never been uttered somewhere, but I certainly can't find it on the Black Lives Matter website and I've never heard it in the news (but then I don't watch Fox, however I doubt she was referring to them as the media allies). She also says that Roland G. Fryer says that it isn't true that there is racial bias in police shootings (True). However he does say that "On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police." Which by itself doesn't examine whether or not black and Hispanics might be more likely to do something to trigger such a response. (I didn't read the whole paper, perhaps it does account for this).  2. She says that it makes no sense to denigrate the flag because of some racist police officers. I agree on that, but is simply taking a knee during the National Anthem denigration?. Standing up with fist raised and middle finger extended..yes, turning around with bare butt cheeks facing the flag..yes, taking a knee...I don't think so.  Is it self defeating?...maybe...but then here we are typing about it. Discussing it. Whether or not it was caused by football players or by Black Lives matter, more and more police departments are now going with body cameras. I think that it is better for us (most of us) and better for the police officers (vast majority of them anyway).  I believe there was a racial/racist problem with the Ferguson police department, however I also think that the jury was correct not to indict officer Darren Wilson. The only video I saw was of Brown acting like a thug in the store. I wish there had been a video of what happened between Brown and Wilson.

Far more interesting to me than if football players stand or kneel, would be if four different groups of typical citizens say 2 separate black groups and 2 separate white groups where to watch two videos of the exact same altercation (enacted with a script obviously) between a police officer and a black person that results in the shooting (theatrical, again obviously) of the black person. In one the officer would be white and the other the officer would be black. (Each of the four groups would only see one video) I'd like to hear the discussion that would follow that. I think the only way we make any progress in this area is through discussion and interaction, not by subject avoidance and not by searching for folks "that think just like me". 

Somewhat related, the NFL....some say they won't watch the NFL anymore because of kneeling football players, maybe so..but I heard a lot of that kind of talk over the years about different subjects, players strikes, end zone celebrations, huge $$ contracts etc. The NFL has survived that all just fine, yes viewership and attendance is down and perhaps some is due to the kneeling, but I suspect that if the NFL ever suffers total demise, it will be from head injuries and litigation costs associated with same. Not from lack of fans due to kneeling athletes....but I'm frequently wrong.

Regardless, Thanks Conrad for the video.

 

50 Shades of Grey,
50 States of USA

it even rhymes

It could have better alliteration.  Try this:

50 Shades of Midnight Grey,
50 States of U.S.A.

And now to throw some folks a bone...... (Not that kind of bone!).

Last night was my rod and gun club's monthly meeting. The meeting is called to order and everyone faces the flag and recites the Pledge of Allegiance. I would guess the group size at between 150 and 175 people. I took careful count and can report with confidence: number of people doing anything other than standing straight: 0.

Now you may say that that was a bit of a 'stacked deck' and there <may> have been an over- representation of conservatives there (cough, cough, choke, dies). But hey, as I said, I just wanted to throw some of the more stanch conservatives here a bone- not everyplace that sings the anthem or pledges allegiance has anyone taking a knee.... :-)

And BTW, being a private, members- only group, the by-laws require all members to state the Pledge of Allegiance. Not sure what would result from 'taking a knee' but I betcha' it would result in that person (one does not have to be a member to attend meetings, they are open to the public) being ejected from the premises and the group if already a member.

Brian